get_invoice_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Check the payment status' with no mention of read-only behavior, possible return statuses, error handling, or whether any side effects occur. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object. Every word is essential, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema). The description clearly states its purpose and parameter, but since there is no output schema, it does not explain what the response contains (e.g., status values like settled/pending). For a straightforward status check, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the return format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (payment_hash) with a clear meaning. The description's phrase 'by payment hash' reinforces that the parameter is the identifier, but adds no new information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'payment status of a Lightning invoice', with the specific lookup method 'by payment hash'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_invoice_status_by_request, which likely uses a different identifier.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when you have a payment hash and need to check status, which is clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_invoice_status_by_request or subscribe_invoice_status, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.